Rhodian Amphoras: Developments in Form and Measurements

Rhodian Amphoras: Developments in Form and Measurements Sergej Ju. Monachov Of all categories of finds from Greek sites, the amphora evidence allows the most optimal possibilities for developing a more precise chronology, espe- cially for that of the late Classical and Hellenistic periods, and fortunately a number of factors present us with an opportunity to carry out a very suc- cessful chronologization: First and foremost the widespread practice at the time of magistrates and fabricants to stamp amphora, while the shape of the containers from each Greek centre remained peculiar and original. A special position as an important chronological indicator in the archaeol- ogy of the Greek period is held by Rhodian amphoras. Though the stamping of amphoras started on Rhodos considerably later than in Herakleia Pontike, Thasos, or Sinope, it acquired a truly global character, since the practice of stamping every product rather than any particular vessel among a consign- ment was fairly quickly established. This fact called forth the abundance of finds of Rhodian stamped amphora handles in cultural layers, and hence the special importance of this evidence in terms of chronologization. It is known that samples of Rhodian amphora stamps from both the Mediterranean and Black Sea littoral are several times more common than those from other centres. In turn, this fact has attracted the steadfast attention of several genera- tions of researchers (V. Grace, J.-Y. Empereur, Ju.S. Badal’janc, V.I. Kac, G. Finkielsztejn et al.) to various problems of Rhodian chronology and resulted in the development of a number of chronological schemes of Rhodian stamping. During recent decades, new deposits with Rhodian stamped amphoras have been discovered, which allow us to make the existing chronological models more precise, and in some cases also more correct. However, while certain success is observable in the development of the chronology of Rhodian stamping, our ideas about the dynamics of forms and standards of the amphoras themselves have remained at the level of the 1970s-80s. The objective of this paper is to correct these ideas on the basis of the latest achievements and recently discovered new evidence. In earlier periods, Rhodos, unlike other East Greek centres such as Kni- dos, Miletos, Samos, and Klazomenai, did not produce transport amphoras. Research by P. Dupont1 has established that there are no signs of such production having taken place during the 5th century BC. It was only in the 4th century BC that Rhodos began to take an active part in the wine trade. 70 Sergej Ju. Monachov However, it is virtually impossible to reliably identify the Rhodian ceramic vessels produced during that century, since the practice of stamping had not yet been introduced on the island. We can only guess that Rhodian amphoras from the late Classical period may be found among the vast quantity of vessels with mushroom-shaped rims which have thus far been classified as being “of unknown provenance”. The first series of Rhodian amphoras that can be securely identified dates from the Hellenistic period. The practice of systematically stamping ceramic containers was introduced in the 3rd century BC and continued for two and a half centuries, which allows us to trace successive changes in the shape of the Rhodian amphoras over time. However, since chronological identification is essentially based on ceramic epigraphy, we need to recall, at least briefly, the main developments of the chronology of Rhodian stamping. Back in the 1930s, B.N. Grakov proposed a general chronological framework for the Rhodian tradition of stamping amphoras. He believed that this practice was limited to the period from 331 to 40 BC.2 Virginia Grace, who worked out a classificatory scheme consisting of six (later seven) successive chronological groups of magistrates’ stamps,3 initially followed Grakov in believing that the practice of stamping on Rhodos was confined to this period. Later on Grace repeatedly modified this scheme, and her second-to-last version4 makes good use of all the contemporary research.5 In Russia an important contribution to the study of Rhodian ceramic epigraphy over the last few decades has been made by Ju.S. Badal’janc, who in essence proposed a further modification of Grace’s scheme, which was elaborated in the 1950s and ‘60s. Badal’janc keeps the same number of groups, but establishes a more precise chronological framework for them and includes in it his own classification of fabricants’ stamps.6 The weakness of this system lies in its uncritical approach to the primary sources, since the failure to collate the names of the Rhodian eponyms means that the general list of the latter contains a number of uncertainties and errors. Conceding that eponyms held office for one year each, Ju.S. Badal’janc includes over four hundred names of magistrates in his list, while the tradition of stamping on Rhodos continued for less than three centuries.7 It is interesting that Grace herself, in one of her last works, revised the chronology of the stamps used on amphoras in the Hellenistic period, and came to the conclusion that significantly lower dating of the Rhodian stamps is necessary.8 Of particular interest in this connection are the results obtained in recent years by G. Finkielsztejn, whose research is based on new deposits. In his view, the practice of stamping ceramic containers on Rhodos began roughly at the turn of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. Arguing for the division of Grace’s typological periods (groups) into sub-groups, he proposes the following chronology: Period I (with three sub-groups) 304-235 BC; Period II (with three sub-groups) = 234-199 BC; Period III (with five sub-groups) = 198-161 BC; Period IV (with two sub-groups) = 160-146 BC; Period V (with Rhodian Amphoras: Developments in Form and Measurements 71 three sub-groups) = 145-108 BC; Period VI = 107-86 BC; Period VII (with two sub-groups) = from 85 BC to the era of Augustus.9 In turn, J.-Y. Empereur, who has studied the Rhodian amphora workshops on the mainland part of the Rhodian peraia, has succeeded in establishing precise chronological connections for a number of magistrates and fabricants from the mid-3rd century to the beginning of the 2nd century BC, including reliable absolute dates for the period in which the ergasteriarchos Hieroteles held office.10 In view of these findings, V.I. Kac, working on the basis of a number of quite precisely dated Black Sea deposits, has recently succeeded in drawing some convincing conclusions concerning the date at which Rhodian stamping began, and as a result has managed to construct a sound hypothesis concerning the chronology of the first stages of stamping. According to his reconstruction, Rhodian stamping began with fabricants’ stamps in the second half of the second decade of the 3rd century BC. He dates the early magistrate group, 1a, to before the Koroni deposit (280-265 BC), while apart from minor adjustments his dating of the subsequent periods of magistrates’ stamps is close to that proposed by Finkielsztejn.11 Despite these evident successes in the study of Rhodian stamping, partic- ularly with regard to the initial stages, further work still needs to be done in order to obtain a more precise chronology of the subsequent periods. A recent volume by Börker and Burow on the Pergamon deposit12 has made clear the importance of a careful re-examination of primary sources. Whereas Rhodian ceramic epigraphy has been studied in detail, no special analysis has been made of the changing morphology of the Rhodian amphoras from the 4th to the 1st century BC, although descriptions of particular groups have been published, and recently a brief overall scheme was established to demonstrate the basic morphological development of the Rhodian vessels.13 In addition we now have a very considerable selection of complete Rhodian amphoras, which allows us to add further nuances to our existing understand- ing of the changing forms and standards of the vessels produced in Rhodos from the end of the 4th century to the 2nd century BC. In my opinion, two basic types of Rhodian amphoras were produced throughout the late Classical and Hellenistic period, and they can most con- veniently be classified in straightforward morphological terms as long-necked (Type 1) and short-necked (Type 2) respectively. Type 1 most probably appeared in the late 4th century BC and for a certain time coexisted with Type 2, but by the end of the first quarter of the 3rd century, at the very latest, it had become the only type to be produced on Rhodos, and continued to develop steadily for a period of just over two centuries. During this period it was repeatedly modified, partially changing its morphological characteristics, which allows us to sub-divide this type into six successive variants: 72 Sergej Ju. Monachov – Variant I-A (Kyrenia); – Variant I-B (Koroni); – Variant I-C (Myrmekion); – Variant I-D (Pietroiu); – Variant I-E (Villanova) with two series: early (I-E-1) and late (I-E-2); – Variant I-F (Alexandrian). The short-necked Type-2 amphora (also known as the Benachi type) emerged early in the first third of the 3rd century BC. Its principal characteristics are the generally squat shape that results from its short neck, and the special “beak-shaped” form of its rim. Because few examples of this type have been found, and because production of Type-2 amphoras was short-lived, it has up to now not been possible to identify different variants within it. The Kyrenia variant (I-A) (named after the shipwreck deposit at Kyrenia on Cyprus,14 where such jars were first found) may be regarded as the earliest of the Type-1 variants.

Load more